T.C COURT OF CASSATION 9.Legal Department Base: 2016/ 34036 Decision: 2020 / 2430 Decision Date: 18.02.2020

ABSTRACT: While the starting dates of the interest rates to be processed for claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly by taking into account the plaintiff’s default warning and default warning claims, it is also incorrect to rule on the interest according to the case and reclamation dates by ignoring the default warning and required to deconstruct it.

(1475 P. K. m. 14)

Tuesday, 18/02/2020, the parties were appointed for the hearing and a call sheet was sent to the parties. On the day of the trial, a Lawyer came on behalf of the defendant and a Lawyer on behalf of the other party. After hearing the oral statements of the lawyers present at the start of the hearing, the hearing was terminated and the report prepared by the Examining Judge was submitted, the file was examined and discussed as necessary:

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:

The plaintiff is working in the defendant’s workplace as a domestic truck driver due to the fact that he has retirement conditions, except for age, when he works

claiming that he had rightly terminated his contract, he requested that the severance pay and fuel deduction, week break, part of the monthly wage, overtime, week break, annual leave, national holiday and general holiday receivables be collected, and the return of the guarantee deed received by the employer be decided.

B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:

The defendant’s deputy stated that the plaintiff worked as a domestic truck driver with a minimum wage between 12.07.2006 and 02.10.2013, did not continue his work without an excuse on dec9-20-21.09.2013,

the plaintiff, who was born in 1972 and is only 41 years old, tried to get severance pay unjustly by abusing the right granted to him by Law No. 1475, arguing that his claims were unfair, and he asked for the case to be dismissed.

C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:

14 of the plaintiff’s Law No. 1475, based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report. the first paragraph of the Article (5) days under the terms of the insurance premium of fifteen years and 3600 clause provided for by petition dated 25.10.2010 day with more work and leave the workplace also entitled to severance pay, annual leave, weekends and public holidays or other claims, fee claims, saying they were not upon the adoption of the case by the partial in place, it was decided.

D) Appeal:

The decision was appealed by the parties’ deputies.

E) Justification:

1- According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the parties’ appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.

2- A positive or negative decision has not been made in the provision part of the decision on the claimant’s request for cancellation of the guarantee deed received during employment in the lawsuit petition HMK.of 297/2. it is contrary to its substance. According to the provisions of the aforementioned Law, a clear and unambiguous provision should be established on all claims subject to litigation.

3- The start dates of interest to be processed for claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly, taking into account the plaintiff’s default warning and claims subject to default warning, while ignoring the default warning and ruling on interest according to the case and recovery dates is also inaccurate and required deconstruction.

F) The result:

If the appealed decision is OVERTURNED for the reasons mentioned above, the defendant’s benefit is appreciated for 2.540.00 TL. it was decided unanimously on 18/02/2020 that the trial attorney’s money should be loaded to the plaintiff and the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the interested party upon request. (¤¤)</b